Crusader/Soul Eater , decent combo?

[CyberThread]

Would a crusader who focuses on unarmed combat, that rolls into a soul eater prc, be a decent melee combative?

[Silva Stormrage]

I could imagine it working decently well. Crusader is cha based so life drain (libris mortis) synergizes with it quite nicely.

Really depends more on how you build it than anything else.

[Vanitas]

As long as you qualify for Soul Eater, it should work.

[OldTrees1]

Both components are strong enough to make good warriors by themselves. But they have some anti-synergy to reckon with.

Crusaders tend to use strikes over full attacks.
Soul Eater gives a bonus per attack.

Fewer attacks than normal * Bonus per attack = Anti-Synergy

[CyberThread]

So what looking at a


1: improved unarmed strike

3rd : superior unarmed strike

6th: life drain (stacking temp hp? )

9th: improved energy drain (stacking skill boost?)

12th shards of granite ???

[CyberThread]

Both components are strong enough to make good warriors by themselves. But they have some anti-synergy to reckon with.

Crusaders tend to use strikes over full attacks.
Soul Eater gives a bonus per attack.

Fewer attacks than normal * Bonus per attack = Anti-Synergy


would you still say it is stronger then the usual barbarian/monk flurry concept build?

[Snowbluff]

Both components are strong enough to make good warriors by themselves. But they have some anti-synergy to reckon with.

Crusaders tend to use strikes over full attacks.
Soul Eater gives a bonus per attack.

Fewer attacks than normal * Bonus per attack = Anti-Synergy

I concur.

Warblades and Swordsages have Diamond Mind and Tiger Claw, which synergize with more attacks. Swordsage has an unarmed adaptation. Both would be more effective.

[Vanitas]

Remember that by strict RAW Soul Eater does not cause negative levels with natural weapon strikes, though.
It's a standard action for 1 negative level (2 after 7th level).
RAI is clearly that it works with natural weapons, but it's also quite clearly not supposed to work with unarmed strikes.
If your DM follows your reading, tho, it looks good enough.

[Snowbluff]

Remember that by strict RAW Soul Eater does not cause negative levels with natural weapon strikes, though.
It's a standard action for 1 negative level (2 after 7th level).
RAI is clearly that it works with natural weapons, but it's also quite clearly not supposed to work with unarmed strikes.
If your DM follows your reading, tho, it looks good enough.

As 3.0 material, that's how negative levels and energy drain worked. It's ambiguous in 3.5, making me lean towards allowing it.

[OldTrees1]

would you still say it is stronger then the usual barbarian/monk flurry concept build?

Hard to say. It uses better materials in a worse manner.

A Boost based Martial Adept would have the least anti-synergy. However ToB does not have enough boosts to build a Boost specialized Martial Adept.

[CyberThread]

what is this about natural attacks not working?

Energy Drain (Su): A soul eater gains the ability to drain energy, bestowing negative levels upon its victims. Beginning at 1st level, the touch of a soul eater bestows one negative level on its target. At 7th level the Soul eater bestows two negative levels with a touch.


Am not making a touch attack, it mearly says with a touch.


If i hit you with my unarmed attack , is that touching you?

[malonkey1]

Hard to say. It uses better materials in a worse manner.

A Boost based Martial Adept would have the least anti-synergy. However ToB does not have enough boosts to build a Boost specialized Martial Adept.

Although, you could also add in the Counters. What that make for enough maneuvers?

As for touch attacks, you can deliver touch spells via unarmed strike, so I don't see why that wouldn't extend to other touch attacks. Not sure if it's RAW, though.

[Vanitas]

what is this about natural attacks not working?

Energy Drain (Su): A soul eater gains the ability to drain energy, bestowing negative levels upon its victims. Beginning at 1st level, the touch of a soul eater bestows one negative level on its target. At 7th level the Soul eater bestows two negative levels with a touch.


Am not making a touch attack, it mearly says with a touch.


If i hit you with my unarmed attack , is that touching you?

Supernatural abilities use standard actions if no action is mentioned. Compare this to the vampire's ability, which explicitly works when you hit with a slam attack.
You're mixing fluff and crunch to achieve the result you want, while the result you want goes against RAI.
If your DM does accept this reading, take Stormguard Warrior. You make touch attacks to "touch" targets, thus dealing negative levels per your reading, and getting damage bonuses out of it as well.


As 3.0 material, that's how negative levels and energy drain worked. It's ambiguous in 3.5, making me lean towards allowing it.

You're misremembering it. I just checked the 3.0 SRD, vampires, wights and vampire spawns all have energy drain described as working when you hit with a slam attack. In fact, the text looks unchanged.

[OldTrees1]

Although, you could also add in the Counters. What that make for enough maneuvers?

As for touch attacks, you can deliver touch spells via unarmed strike, so I don't see why that wouldn't extend to other touch attacks. Not sure if it's RAW, though.

I automatically included Counters and Maneuvers like IHS and WRT. So no there are still not enough maneuvers for a build specialized in swift action maneuvers.

[CyberThread]

I automatically included Counters and Maneuvers like IHS and WRT. So no there are still not enough maneuvers for a build specialized in swift action maneuvers.


What if you also include utility punches, like those that ignore DR and hardness, or those that are transport abilities, like shadow hand maneuvers?

[OldTrees1]

What if you also include utility punches, like those that ignore DR and hardness, or those that are transport abilities, like shadow hand maneuvers?

Utility Strikes would be in maneuvers known but not readied. Even then they clash with the Swift action + Full attack concept.

The standard action teleport would be in maneuvers known but not readied. The later swift action teleport was accounted for.

[CyberThread]

Secondary option against the host of things immune to drain?

[OldTrees1]

Secondary option against the host of things immune to drain?

Strikes are one of the many options to use against such foes.

Do remember that being secondary options against the "host" of things immune to drain, they probably deserve less focus than your full attack.

[CyberThread]

Sorry if confusing.

When comparing to a furry of misses monk build that is often suggesTed to maximize the class. Is doing crusaders or warblades a safer bet when immune to drain creatures are frequent in higher level combat.

[OldTrees1]

Sorry if confusing.

When comparing to a furry of misses monk build that is often suggesTed to maximize the class. Is doing crusaders or warblades a safer bet when immune to drain creatures are frequent in higher level combat.

No. But neither is it less safe. It is different. If you are a fan of Strikes then Crusader is a suitable frequent dip for the Soul Eater.

[CyberThread]

what do you believe is the best base class then for soul eater

[OldTrees1]

what do you believe is the best base class then for soul eater

Barbarian 2 / Monk 2 / Fighter 2 / Soul Eater 2 / Crusader 2 / Soul Eater

[CyberThread]

Pounces, whirling rage / monk feats/ fighter feats/ +4 str and negative level/ crusader 1/2 dip benfits / more stuff....

is that what you have in mind?

[OldTrees1]

Pounces, whirling rage / monk feats/ fighter feats/ +4 str and negative level/ crusader 1/2 dip benfits / more stuff....

is that what you have in mind?

Correct. (Although trading Whirling Frenzy for Goliath Barbarian [+6 Str, Large Size] is a valid option)
I think it gives a solid foundation for your Soul Eater focus while also progressing the fun strike tricks you like.
I would suggest splitting your Crusader focus between Swift action maneuvers and Strikes. (Since Swift actions synergize with your default combat)